9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced by the ld. AR in this regard. In view of the aforesaid observations, we have no hesitation in holding that the revenue had not made any case at all for taxing the opening balance of advances received against construction project as on 31/03/2012 by applying the differential profit percentage of 14% during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Chargeability of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act which are consequential in nature. The law is now very well settled that interest u/s. 234C of the Act should be only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which would be premature for adjudication at this stage and hence dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized document containing Annexure A-14 was found and seized which contained the advance tax estimate of the assessee company for A.Y. 2013-14. In the said advance tax estimate, the assessee had projected receipt of sales from the project at ₹ 75 Crores. The assessee had estimated the profit percentage to be at 30%. Based on the said seized document, the assessee had offered ₹ 22.50 Crores (₹ 75 Crores x 30%) at the time of search proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14. However, while filing the return of income, the assessee did not disclose the same in view of the following reasons:- a) The assessee stated that Annexure A-14 contains advance tax estimate showing expected project receipts, expected project sales revenue in F.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year and assessee had to refund the advance to them as under:- i) Shweta Mundra and Om Prakash Goenka - ₹ 14,59,91,380/- ii) Sucheta Goenka and Om Prakash Goenka - ₹ 14,59,91,380/- Total ₹ 29,19,82,760/- c) The assessee even gave the movement of advances against construction project as under:- i) Balance as on 31/03/2012 - ₹ 123,43,52,824/- ii) Less Cancellation of booking during the year as detailed supra - ₹ 29,19,82,760/- iii) Add advances against constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,395/- while completing the assessment. This action of ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.3. The aforesaid facts stated above are not in dispute and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is a fact that assessee had been offering estimated profit percentage @16% from A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Due to the change in the market rates decided on demand and supply, the assessee had resorted to estimate the profit percentage @30% on the advance receipts against construction projects during the year and had offered to tax accordingly. This extra offer of profit percentage during the year had triggered the action of the ld. AO to apply the same profit percentage at 30% for earlier years also. In our considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.5. We find that the said offer made by the assessee in the sum of ₹ 22.50 Crores was made based on expected project receipts and expected project sales during the year under consideration of ₹ 75 Crores. But it is a fact on record that actual receipts during the year was only ₹ 13,47,25,000/- on which profit percentage of 30% was duly offered to tax by the assessee. The Revenue in the instant case has not doubted the profit percentage of 30% offered by the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessee has also not retracted the said offer of profit percentage @30%. But since projected receipts and actual receipts were substantially different, there was no occasion for the assessee to keep up its commitment g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
